P.O. AGARWAL, J- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Hailakandi in Title Suit No. 43/91. 2. The respondent plaintiff, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as The Corporation instituted Title Suit No. 43/91 stating inter alia that a quantity of 1798.380 MT of unstaked lime was despatched by Railway to Jogighopa Railway Station by Railway rake. The plaintiff had engaged defendant A.B.C. India Ltd. for transportation of the said goods from Jogighopa to Cahcar Paper Mill premises at Panchgram and the entire goods of the consignment was insured against loss of transit by the defendant No. 2 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the present appellant before us. It was an open policy valid from 1.5.88 to 30.4.89. The defendant No. 1 took delivery of the above goods at Jogighopa Railway Station but failed to deliver the same as a result of which the plaintiff sustained loss and accordingly the claim was preferred. As the defendant refused to pay, the plaintiff instituted a suit claiming of Rs. l 8,32,571.47p being the costs of the goods inclusive of freight and a further sum of Rs. 4,58,142.86p being the incidental cost at the rate of 25% on the above amount. The plaintiff prayed for a joint decree against both the defendants. 3. The two defendants contested the suit by filing written statement whereupon the following five issues were framed: 1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try this suit? 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3. Whether the defendant No. 1, ABC India Limited is liable to compensate the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 22,90,714,33 paisa as alleged with other incidental reliefs for alleged breach of contract by causing damage and non-delivery of goods? 4. Whether the defendant No. 2, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as an insurer is liable to compensate the plaintiff in case of failure of defendant No. 1 wholly or partly of the relief in compensation claimed by the plaintiff? 5. To what reliefs the parties are entitled in law and equity? 4. Vide order dated 5.12.95 the Court framed as many as 6 additional issues and after recording evidence etc., vide the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court decreed the suit against defendant No. 2, the insurer, for the amount claimed by the plaintiff. 5. To what reliefs the parties are entitled in law and equity? 4. Vide order dated 5.12.95 the Court framed as many as 6 additional issues and after recording evidence etc., vide the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court decreed the suit against defendant No. 2, the insurer, for the amount claimed by the plaintiff. The Court further held that the carrier ABC India Ltd. can not be held liable for non-delivery of goods in time due to the act of God and the suit was dismissed against defendant No. 1. The Court also granted interest pendentelite at the rate of 8% on the decretal amount. Hence, the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff and the respondent defendant ABC India Ltd. 6. In this case the fact that unstaked lime weighing 1798.380 MT was entrusted to the respondent ABC India Ltd, the carrier for carrying it to Cachar Paper Mill at Panchgram from Jogighopa Railway Station has been well established from the oral and documentary evidence on record and as a matter of fact, this has not been disputed. The Insurance Company has also not disputed that there was an open policy covering the risk of the goods in transit. The fact has also been well proved that the carrier failed to deliver the goods. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the inclusion of freight and incidental expenses. The insurance policy was produced before us and on perusal of the same we find that there was a specific endorsement by the insurer for reimbursement of incidental expenses at the rate of 25% of the value of the goods. There can not be dispute that the cost of the goods shall also include the freight paid by the plaintiff. 7. The main grievance of the appellant is as regards the finding of the trial Court in Issue No. 3. The carrier ABC India Ltd. in their written statement raised a plea that during the relevant period there was heavy rain followed by devastating rain and flood in the North Eastern Region which led to the closure of the road link from Guwahati to Panchgram and the road link was snapped. The carrier got the goods unloaded at Guwahati and the defendant carrier is not liable as it was an act of God. 8. The carrier got the goods unloaded at Guwahati and the defendant carrier is not liable as it was an act of God. 8. In support of the plea the respondent carrier ABC India Ltd. had examined one witness who had no personal knowledge about the matter as he was posted at the place subsequently. The witness produced certain documents and copies of newspaper to show that in the month of August there was wave of flood in Karimganj and Cachar District. However, in the absence of any evidence on record, the natural calamities like flood in Barak Valley in the month of August had nothing to do with the consignment. The learned trial Judge held that the carrier could not transport the goods in time due to natural calamities which is an act of God and accordingly the defendant ABC India Ltd. can not be held liable. 9. In this case, there is no averment even by the ABC India Ltd. that the consignment in question was damaged in flood water or due to act of God inundating flood or the vehicle carrying the goods was swept away by flood or damaged due to landslide etc. The specific plea taken in the written statement is that due to snapping of road connection the goods were unloaded at Guwahati office. The agreement entered into between the carrier and the Corporation clearly provided that in case of such exigency, the carrier is required to carry the goods by alternative route. Moreover, in case when road communication remained snapped for a particular period, the carrier could have delivered the goods afterwards. The carrier failed to lead any meaningful evidence and the trial Court went away in recording the finding that non delivery of goods was an act of God. We set aside the said finding. In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Patel Roadways Ltd.-Vs-Birla Yamaha Ltd., reported in (2000)4 SCC 91 , wherein the Apex Court held as follows: "The Court considered the question whether loss of goods by accidental fire can be said to be an act of God. In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Patel Roadways Ltd.-Vs-Birla Yamaha Ltd., reported in (2000)4 SCC 91 , wherein the Apex Court held as follows: "The Court considered the question whether loss of goods by accidental fire can be said to be an act of God. The Court observed that an act of God will be an extraordinary occurrence due to natural causes, which is not the result of any human intervention and which could not be avoided by any amount of foresight and care, e.g. a fire caused by lightning; but an accidental fire though it might not have resulted from any act of or omission of the common carrier, cannot be said to be an act of God." The Court further held that the plaintiff consignee who claimed damages need not prove negligence on the part of the carrier. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.-Vs-State of Assam, reported in AIR 1962 Assam 110. 10. In view of the above, we hold that the carrier is also jointly and severally liable for the loss and the finding of the trial Court in Issue No. 3 stands set aside. During the course of argument it was submitted that the insurance company has in the meantime deposited the decretal amount. Learned counsel Mr Dutta prays for some time to pay the balance amount and submits that the appellant insurance company may be given liberty to realise the amount paid by them from the carrier. The insurance company will be at liberty to take action in accordance with law. The suit stands decreed holding that both the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damages as quantified by the trial Court. 11. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.